Page 116 - MIGRATION

Basic HTML Version

at the everyday level and at the institutional such. The problem is that K.M. has allowed himself
the biggest “sin” as an “inheritor-of-Thracians” – to occupy a political position and to get involved
with a political party which is different from the political hue of the mayor of long standing during
the new election campaign for Tzarevo mayor. His strategy in the struggle to monopolize political
representation is constructed as a form of taking advantage of Thracian heritage which he utilizes
to political gains (for instance, organizing political lobbying in the form of taking part in folklore
festivals). This is preciselywhy it is considered a“sin”– because by their very natureThracian societies
voluntary organizations. Let us consider this in more detail.
Insofar as in the local municipal administration “all are Thracian” (which Meglena Zlatkova
calls “
migration towards majority
”, see Zlatkova 2011), the only possible discursive strategy in
competing with a political opponent is to tie it with the Thracian idea. It is only in this form that it
could be practically truthful and successful; in case of the opposite, it will simply be “retribution”. In
other words, the condition for the possibility of its success is to render K.M.’s
as “inheritor-
of-Thracian-heritage” into an
(in the sense attributed by Bourdieu – in terms of taking
away the meaning and value of the stakes in the game, the stakes which make the game “worth
living and dying for”). This is why the accounting function of the official discourse is put into
motion and the inheritor who does-not-do-that-which-he-is-supposed-to-in-view-of-what-he-
has-become (an inheritor of Thracian Bulgarians) faces sanctions by being excluded from the
possible institutional forms in which he can manifest his charisma ‘
-inheritor’. Fact is that K.
M. was denied any possibility to participate in the Second International Festival “
Strandja moya,
”. Also, fact is that while we were trying to find our bearings in the new situation, we would
receive only monosyllabic responses, ungrounded or fragmented replies to testify to this “breach”.
The “expulsion” of K. M. from the symbolic power structures was rendered in terms of a “personal”
breach between him and the mayor, between him and his“spiritual mother”Z. S., between him and
all those “other people he swindled” (in our case in point financially, but one inevitably wonders
whether it was only financially?!), yet these terms in practice had political (in the most general
sense) connotations. The problem lies in symbolic representation – insofar as the double networks
spanning the discourse of “Thracian heritage” are also recruited to serve the political interests of
the mayor in power, K. M. can no longer be a “brand name” of the town of Tzarevo with regard to
his Thracian inheritance. As a result: 1) he is “accused” of betraying the selflessness entailed in the
very Thracian idea and 2) he is symbolically excluded from its official membership representation
(for instance, the president of the Union of Thracian Societies does not mention the Youth Thracian
Society, even if the president of the Regional union in Burgas offered a “simple” explanation to this
symbolic act during an interview in June 2011).
Going slightly ahead of the current phase of case studies’ presentation in my discussion so
far, I can say that in general the above type of orderlines is opposite to the one in the“Dilyana/Aishe”
case observed on the other side of the border – in her case all social and biographical strategies
of the agent are subject ‘in-reality-and-for-all-practical-purposes’, in the vocabulary of Garfinkel
(1984), to
rejecting the inheritance
which is being passed on, while with “K. M.” they are geared at
accepting it.
I return to this below.